Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Galoa is our partner village, and it is they who get the lion's share of our marine park levy of FJD 20.00 that is also being used to compensate two other villages, Wainiyabia and Deuba for protecting the Sharks within the Fiji Shark Corridor. And if contrary to our observations, anybody besides us should really be patrolling any reefs, it would be us who have organized and sponsored their fish warden courses.

“There was great elation when these
sharks and manta rays were listed in CITES this March, but although it
was a significant moment for the conservation world, now comes the task
of making these listings work in practice as time is running out for
some of these species,” said Glenn Sant, TRAFFIC’s Marine Programme
Leader.

“CITES listings do not take away the
need for comprehensive fisheries management, they represent one critical
part of that management through aiming to control trade and prevent
international trade in products of these species being sourced from
unsustainable or illegal fisheries.”

“Key to implementing the CITES regulations
will be the establishment of chain of custody measures to facilitate
enforcement and verification that harvest is legal,” said TRAFFIC’s
Research Officer, Victoria Mundy-Taylor, co-author of the new study.

Indeed!

You may want to reserve a good chunk of time to download and then read this remarkable document by Traffic, and big kudos to them for having done an extremely good job. It is as long and comprehensive as it is frustrating, and it illustrates the monumental challenge that is the implementation of the decisions taken this March.

And there are many surprises, like the unmasking of the Maldives as a major Shark fin exporting nation, page 5 which begs the question, how does that dovetail with the Shark sanctuary?

Read it! It talks about the challenges of implementing the provisions, this especially in those developing nations whose resources are simply not adequate for performing those tasks.

But is that the only solution?

Why is it that everybody assumes that e.g. the Non-Detriment Findings must be financed out of public coffers and conducted by public officials, and not by those who make the money, ie the Shark exporters? Those findings are akin to ecological impact assessments - and those are usually paid for by the applicants and performed by independent contractors, not the authorities!

Is there any rational and legitimate, and for the matter, legal reason why this cannot be applied to Fisheries?

Transitions Friends and Colleagues...It is with a heavy heart that I'm writing to inform you of my resignation from my position as Conservation Programs Director with the Coral Reef Alliance. My last working day will be August 9, 2013.I have been with CORAL since early 2005. It has been a rewarding experience filled with relationships that were unimaginable when I stepped into my role. The journey has been exceptional. It has certainly never been dull nor without drama. The value and importance of people and collaboration as the focus of CORAL's work has been emphasized and magnified time and again. Your belief in--and support for--CORAL's mission over the years is reflected in my confidence that the organization is in a strong position for my transition to new challenges.I take from CORAL the strength of experience, the integrity of working on a globally significant issue, and the knowledge that our collaborations together over the years have catalyzed meaningful change for coral reefs and the human communities who depend upon them.Until CORAL appoints a new director, please feel free to contact executive director Dr Michael Webster (mwebster@coral.org) for any organizational issue, or assistant program director Jason Vasques (jvasques@coral.org) for anything programmatic.A heartfelt thanks for providing me guidance, inspiration, constructive council, and--from time to time--a receptive ear. It's not just rhetoric or "NGO speak" when I say that your collaborations made my successes possible. Your commitment in helping realize our shared missions has been powerful.I'm not sure where my next steps will take me--and in truth I'm looking forward to taking my first real vacation in nearly nine years. But after I decompress, I look forward to our paths crossing again professionally or personally.Cheers and my heartfelt thanks,RickRick MacPhersonConservation Programs DirectorCoral Reef Alliance

That is of course the official version.

There are resignations and then, there are resignations - and this one stinks. And although I'm not privy to any details, I do know this: this is a huge loss for the Coral Reef Alliance.

Rick is one of last year's honorable nominees, and what I said there is but a tiny glimpse of the enormous respect and affection I have for the man. In a conservation universe that is so often plagued by lack of accountability, ludicrous agendas, widespread cronyism and outright bullshit, and the total waste of resources that goes with that, he shines by his uncompromising integrity, honesty and total commitment to the cause. And apart from his unmatched professional skills that range from great leadership and brilliant erudition all the way to the arcane arts of successful diplomacy, Rick is a real Mensch, a good man with a big heart.

Buddy you shall be sorely missed.

Only for a while, that is - because I have no doubt that once you have duly decompressed (indulge!), you shall rise again with new vigor and motivation, and with a much better job description.

Sunday, July 28, 2013

It describes the whole fin ban fisco including the ignominious role of WESPAC.

It also contains the links to the various petitions, and here is once again the post by Shark Savers with valuable pointers for your submission. Should you still be unsure, do have the Shark Defenders help you as many of the comments posted so far have been useless all the way to being harmful.

The comments period expires on July 31st, so if you haven't already, do it right away!

The oder side has not been idle.

Watch this video - it is of course propaganda, but it is never the less a correct representation of the majority of US Shark fishing insofar as the fishermen do not fin but take off the fins only once the carcasses have been landed.

Like all good propaganda, it all sounds reasonable.

But if the fin bans get overturned, you can bet that they will also land those Sharks that are now being set free because the meat has no commercial value, like the Blues, OWTs, Hammerheads, Silkies etc!

And those bans are still very much at risk.

The US Government is now actively involved in the fight to overturn the California fin ban and has filed this brief. This is not idle talk, it is a powerful document that contains strong arguments against the State, and it will be interesting to read the rebuttal by the lawyers of the pro-ban side.

If California falls, so will all other State fin bans.

With that in mind: is anybody working on compromise measures, like including language that selectively allows for fins from legal and sustainable Federal Shark fisheries - this obviously on top of continuing to vigorously fight the NMFS ruling?
Yes that would equal conceding a major defeat, especially when it comes to WESPAC and its attack on the Pacific Shark Sanctuaries - but it would at least curtail the international fin trade which is the stated aim of those bans in the continental US!

After too many days of absolutely shocking conditions both above and underwater, Warren's super-human patience was finally rewarded with clear skies, calm seas and above all, crystal viz.

And the Bulls did play.

They are still here in good albeit fickle numbers, meaning that we get 50+ on one day and then less than 20 on the following. We can now clearly identify who is pregnant (Gape is now officially confirmed!), and like every year, the composition is slowly changing away from a predominance of large females to more and more subadults, many of which pesky males.

I was on the opposite side when it happened and can attest that whilst bodyguard Tubee was flailing around like crazy with his Shark prod whilst squeaking like Alvin, the man kept his cool and continued to snap away totally unfazed. So bravo to both for having handled the situation more than admirably!
Yes the man is rather intrepid - tho having put him in the really hot seat on his very last dive, I STILL wonder why, exactly, Warren then chose to strip out of his wetsuit, in frigid water, before boarding Predator!

April 2013: Incomplete as yet.
I think a fair guesstimate for the final April 2013 count will be in the region of
15 Dive operators, 600 dives, 3000 individual diver observations.

I say, pretty awesome!

It's obviously still too early for detecting any trends, but the GFSC continues to be vibrant and will eventually provide for excellent scientific data - whilst being great tourism and outreach, and above all, great fun as well!

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Development and validation of a mid-water baited stereo-video technique for investigating pelagic fish assemblages. Recorded as part of a scientific research project conducted by the Department of Fisheries and the University of Western Australia.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

A renown Shark photographer, he is above all a fellow Shark diving industry professional - and having discovered those Shark repellent wetsuits, he has taken on SAMS and is publicly, and doggedly asking precise questions about their, and I cite, scientifically designed and developed shark repellent wetsuit technology.

Shark Attack Mitigation Systems - SAMSMark,
our response to your other post on the site today refers. To clarify,
the one minute video sets out one very short extract of a complex
testing process, which has been conducted independently by University of
Western Australia since January. We welcome
you to investigate the science in more detail. The link to which you
have responded sets out the science page at the SAMS website, and the
FAQ page at http://www.sharkmitigation.com/faq.html may provide more information if you would like to check it out.

Mark GraySo
the research hasnt involved Great White Sharks? Bit irresponsible in
Marketing your products and stating that they "Protect" and "hide"
without testing on the major species of sharks which has cause the
fatalities in Australia in recent years..........?

Shark Attack Mitigation Systems - SAMSMark,
we are trying to come up with a positive solution, based in science.
Independent testing will be an ongoing process, potentially taking many
years as we discover how the full range of predatory species respond and
progressively refine the visual technology.
All ocean users are at risk and discretion and caution is always
necessary. We think people know that. We are offering information on
what we have found so far scientifically, and an alternative to a black
neoprene wetsuit so that ocean users can consider that option and make a
choice. We are very clear that we are not offering guarantees. Who
could? We invite you to also contribute positively to this page. We have
responded to two of your posts already on the same theme. If you have
suggestions as to how we could better inform, such as making the
position clearer on our website or including more detail in our FAQ's
then please let us know. We would welcome your constructive
contributions.

Mark GrayWell
according to your previous posting the testing program has only started
in January this year with that testing program only conducted on Tiger
sharks with baited drums???. Wouldnt it be wise and responsible to do
further testing on different species,
namely Great Whites and Bull sharks and using test subjects which
honestly represent how your wetsuits present themselves to potential
predator shark (ie moving dummy surfer or diver)? With all your press
releases and your youtube clip you refer to your products as
"Protecting" or "Hiding" from a potential shark attack and base all your
supporting evidence on a test which produced very limiting results.
You have entered into a full scale marketing event without doing your
homework on the so call technology and the testing involved. Now if you
can not answer my questions from my own experience with sharks on a
regualr basis and with little common knowledge well maybe you have a
take a reall good look at your product and how your market it and
yourself to the community and consumers. I have asked in a previous
posts questions which I and I bet alot of others out there would be
asking and the last response I recieved from you was to quote "Mark, we
note and respect your perspectives and views" but failed to answer the
questions at hand.

Mark GrayI
accept your invitation to contribute positively to this page. What I
would like to see is some more transparency to the technology, research,
and what you conveyin your marketing of your products to the general
public. I would like to see these 10 questions answered:

1. When did the in field testing start?2. When did your marketing campaign start? 3. Has there been any testing of your wetsuits on Great White and Bull sharks?4.
Has there been any other testing procedure which has not included
baiting of sharks for attracting? If so what have they been?5.
Has there been any testing which involved moving a simulated subject
wearing you wetsuit through the water (both Diving and Surfing)? 6.
What in field testing program has been used to determine how Cryptic
your wetsuits are? And how are the results differ with different
visibility, water colour, overhead light ?7. Are the Cryptic dive wetsuits loose their ability to “Hide” when a scuba tank, BCD and fins are added? 8. How does the Cryptic dive wetsuit hide the noise and sight of the bubbles of a scuba diver?9. Has the results of the research conducted by the WA University been published and if so which publication?10. Do you personally wear your SAMS wetsuit when your diving or surfing?

1. When did the in field testing start? January 2013 – refer previous post.2.
When did your marketing campaign start? We have not started marketing,
we did a media release to let people know what we are doing on
Wednesday last week, and opened up the website for review, together with
this Facebook page to encourage discussion.3.
Has there been any testing of your wetsuits on Great White and Bull
sharks? Not as yet, we have covered this in your earlier posts and
elsewhere in the forum. The next set of tests are proposed to be with
Great Whites.4.
Has there been any other testing procedure which has not included
baiting of sharks for attracting? If so what have they been? Not at this
stage, the University of Western Australia is precluded from using
humans or humanoid forms of any kind and have determined that the
existing testing process is satisfactory. Baiting is a necessary
practicality to get any engagement with sharks in experimental
conditions. 5.
Has there been any testing which involved moving a simulated subject
wearing you wetsuit through the water (both Diving and Surfing)? Not as
yet.6.
What in field testing program has been used to determine how Cryptic
your wetsuits are? And how are the results differ with different
visibility, water colour, overhead light ? We have responded to this
question elsewhere on the site yesterday and will include in our FAQ’s
at our website.7.
Are the Cryptic dive wetsuits loose their ability to “Hide” when a
scuba tank, BCD and fins are added? We have responded to this in your
previous post.8. How does the Cryptic dive wetsuit hide the noise and sight of the bubbles of a scuba diver? Obviously it doesn’t.9.
Has the results of the research conducted by the WA University been
published and if so which publication? We have responded to this in the
posts above.10. Do you personally wear your SAMS wetsuit when your diving or surfing? Yes.

Mark,
you have now posted somewhere between 20 and 30 questions to this page
in the course of a couple of days, most of them repetitious. Some
include personal statements that verge on troll-like behavior. We have
respectfully attempted to answer them.

We
accept that you are not a fan of what we trying to achieve. Equally
there are many people who see logic in the concept and wish to explore
it further. Over the last few days, this has included previous shark
attack victims making contact with us to see how they can help us in our
trials.

We
will not be responding to any further posts from you, we hope you
understand. If you continue to post in this manner we will, with regret,
be obliged to exclude you from the forum.

Mark Grayits
a shame that after you have invited me for constructive contributions
in a previous post your now no longer going to response to my valid
questions regarding your product. I am all for trying to achieve a much
safer aquatic environment for all to enjoy
but I am not a fan on the ways and means in which your company has
mislead the general public by telling them that you are scientifically
backed, have the technology which has proven itself, hides you from the
shark when diving and putting the fear of god into the genral public
especially in your youtube clip stating "now the deadliest coast in the
world". You have based your whole product line on unfinalised research
(Results from 6 months of a 24 months research project) and on a single
species of shark which is not the major cause of fatal attacks here in
Australia, under different conditions which would not apply for which
your products are inteded to be used for. Your Youtube clip and media
releases do not included any of the cautionary comments which you have
included in you website and your response to my questions above show
that your more concerned about getting your product out into the public
eye well before any of the scientific results and conclusions have been
finalised which to me makes me believe that your company is more
concerned with making a quick buck and not addressing the public saferty
of water users. Lie to the genral public and you will be bitten on the
arse but my concern is more for the safety of potential users of your
products who have bought your product based on your mistruths and false
advertising.

Mark GrayFrom the SAMS face book page they finally answered done of my point blank questions.

1. The field testing is a 24 month on going process which started January 2014. Final results are still 18 months away.2. The field testing is based on one species of shark (tiger) which was attracted by baits3. The field testing has not involved Great White sharks or Bull Sharks to date4.
The field testing does not include testing similar sized subject which
would represent the shape and movement of a surfer or diver. According
to SAMS bait is required to attract sharks to the test subjects.5.
The cryptic dive suits are tested in clear water on a bright day not
results given regarding low light, cloudy, or reduced visibility water
quality.6. Cryptic dive suits also require cryptic patterns to be also applied to scuba tanks, BCD, fins to make the wetsuit cryptic.7. Cryptic dive wetsuits will not hide the user from the sight of their bubbles or the noise of their breathing. 8. SAMS acknowledged that GWS do attack using a breach method on silhouette prey on the surface.9. SAMS also acknowledged that sharks also use other senses other than vision to hunt prey.

On
the basis that field testing was performed by using baited drums on the
test subjects of two tiger sharks in clear water in bright days with
this testing only in its 6 month out of 24 set aside for a finalized
conclusion makes me believe that SAMS is more interested at cashing in
on the fears if the general public that spending time for proper ethical
research to base their products on.

And to the Oceans Institute, this:

Sounds
like your cashing in with the developers and using half truths to sell
wetsuits that "Protect" and "Hide" you from all species of sharks.

This
is making your research look like as joke and is tied up with a bunch
of snake oiler promising the world but delivering nothing

Bingo.

As I first mocked, and then stated: it's justtotal BS and shameless profiteering!

Meanwhile, in la-la land...

David has unearthed yet another priceless life saving video by Eternal Youth Empire aka Israel-Light - how to retard ageing by a whopping 30%!!!

Monday, July 22, 2013

High Intensity Discharge for those who wish to Sleep in Peace is a charity organization and trusted self-help authority dedicated to helping humanity refine its collective consciousness.

We are a group of artists / environmentalists / philosophers / humanitarians /animal loving vegetarians / scientists / attorneys / surfer mavericks with more life experiences than degrees to which we attribute our learning. Sure we have degrees and awards if that sort of thing impresses you. What impresses us is a great day surfing and coming home to our significant other.

If not, you may wanna go and read the absolutely mind-boggling debate on this post by Shark Year, including, and I cite again, tons of scientific evidence!
And should you still not be convinced , here's Veronica Gray aka scenester reciting her mantra in Louisiana - inclusive of the "dead in 8 seconds" factoid.
Did you check out the link - severe envenomations can be successfully treated even 7 to 8 hours after the bite! And - remember the striped Seal decoy by Marine Dynamics!

Far from being good technology that has proven itself as stated in the promotional video and suggested by those dozens of press releases, this is yet again one of those commercial scams targeting the fear of Shark strikes - and if the testimony of Peter Moore in this thread is any indication of the anxiety pervading the surfing community in Western Australia, the brazen marketing strategy may even be successful!

I was intrigued by the comment by Marine Dynamics.

Upon asking for more details, I got this answer.

Our lucky seal decoy is made out of a Zebra striped rug (we were desperate for materials). Not only is it good for breaching, but even during a chum trip where the sharks have plenty of time to suss it out, they still go for Zebra!

Bingo.

The zebra suit is just bullshit, much like the camo suit that will, if at all, only work as long as its wearer will remain completely motionless and not expel any bubbles - or does anybody really believe that those Sharks are too stupid to detect a person underwater, the more as they are wonderfully equipped for finding their natural prey that is often exquisitely camouflaged?

And the science?

Like in the case of the Shark Shield, the various chemicals and those metals and magnets, I have no doubt that some positive effects have been detected in small, controlled experiments.

But totake those findings and then simply declare them relevant for the prevention of Shark strikes is at best naive and at worst, utterly ruthless and criminally negligent - the more as under certain conditions, they may sometimes even favor instead of repelling a strike, see the zebra decoy and the controversy about the Shark Shield!

Like yours truly and others have said a million times, Shark strikes elude science, this because in real life, they are subject to too many variables and are simply too rare to warrant any statistical analysis, and because they cannot be properly tested via the scientific method - as in getting thousands of volunteers splish-splashing around somewhere in the presence of those large predatory Shark and then comparing the results of one variable (= e.g. the zebra wetsuit) against those of a (in this case = suicidal!) control group.

Or would those assertive gentlemen in the video oblige and personally showcase those suits at one of the GWS aggregation sites - maybe even with the token Shark media whore filming them in slo-mo?

Long story short?

Normally I couldn't be bothered less.

There's plenty of scamsters out there, and there's equally plenty of credulous suckers eager to hand them their money - as amply proven by the stupendous size and growth of quackery and the various bizarre ramifications of the New Age movement ranging from crystal skulls all the way to Lemuria.

So if those aquatic recreationists want to fork out 500 bucks for a textile placebo, good on them - Shark strikes are so incredibly rare that wearing or not wearing those Shark repellent wetsuits will have zero effect, at least when it comes to the statistics.

That is, only if all other variables remain unchanged!

But what if those surfers and spearos were to change their behavior in response to their misguided sense of security, and engage in riskier activities as a consequence? That is definitely a possibility as amply documented by other (legit) safety devices like e.g. dive computers - and if anything should happen, does anybody believe that this meager disclaimer is gonna hold water?

We shall see shall we not!

No worries re the manufacturers.

That's clearly their assumed business risk.

But what about those researchers?

Considering the breathy marketing, the essentially untested and thus misleading scientific foundation (great formula!) and chart and especially, the brazen assurances - is that really something Professor Shaun Collin and Professor Nathan Hart and especially, the Oceans Institute at the University of Western Australia want to lend their name to, this in view of the very real risk of being held liable for any future mishaps?

Friday, July 19, 2013

This is an excellent complement to their Sharks Count project and having snooped a bit, the information provided is what a typical US-based citizen scientist will likely require - not too little and not too much!

And there's more!
Since those Sharks can't see from far but only perceive things in the last few seconds before the attack, it also unequivocally follows that the infamous nikitating membrane is a) either transparent or more likely, b) never existed in the first place! Elementary my dear Watson!
Ain't science a wonderful thing!

So what about those Sea Snakes.This is obviously a bold-faced lie, and this video simply did not happen - and shame on AIMS for aiding and abetting such a shameless hoax!

At first glance, it comes across as a rather epic multidisciplinary tour the force that even includes cultural anthropology no less!
But beware - the guy is quite obviously nothing but a brazen liar and moocher who wants to make himself important and is angling for fame and possibly even royalty payments! In going with a remarkable, and equally frequent bonmot by one of the greatest luminaries in Shark conservation, one does not need a Ph.D. to figure that his story is just simply impossible because the Professor (!) has only made his groundbreaking scientific discovery now!
Elementary!

Long story short?

Buy that Shark repellent wetsuit as it will save your life - as unequivocally proven here!
Any GWS barreling up at 100 miles per hour because it has mistaken you for a Seal and wants to eat you only wants to give you a hug will immediately cease and desist, inches away, because it will realize that you're actually a venomous Sea Snake on a surf board!